So, how could this batch of Sea People have come from the Nile delta when they were fought so far north?

"I equipped my frontier in Zahi (Djahy) prepared before them."[3] The Sea Peoples' "land forces were moving south along the Levantine coast and through Palestine when they were confronted and stopped by Ramesses' forces at the Egyptian frontier in Djahi in the region of later Phoenicia" writes the Hittitologist Trevor Bryce.[4]"

"Ramesses' comments about the scale of the Sea Peoples' onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of Hatti, Ugarit, Ashkelon and Hazor around this time. As the Hittitologist Trevor Bryce observes:[69]"

For a start there was no such thing as "Sea People". It was a fabrication. The Egyptian texts only say that some of their opponents came from somewhere "by the sea" or "at the sea". There was no mass destruction of any of those civilizations. It only looks like a collapse because of the flawed chronology. The people living in those regions before the so-called Dark Age are exactly the same as the people living in those regions afterwards.

Once again we have someone using circular logic. Carbon dating is useless unless it is calibrated using something that is solidly dated. We have nothing from that time period that is of a known date because of the disputed chronology. The result is that they are using the flawed chronology to confirm the flawed chronology.

They never invaded anywhere and there is no evidence of a mass migration. The cultures that existed in their respective regions before the collapse were exactly the same as the cultures in those regions afterwards. Nobody has a clue who they were or where they came from but the Sea Peoples were raiders, not invaders.

Further supporting the theory of infiltration rather than disastrous invasion, Maier adds: “There is almost no evidence that the Philistine culture appeared following massive destruction. Few of the Canaanite cities that existed in the southern coastal plain of Israel prior to the appearance of the Philistines show evidence of major destruction.”

On the contrary, the material dating to the Iron Age in the Levant indicate a continuing cultural exchange with the Aegean. “The conception that the Sea People phenomenon was a single event in the early 13th century BCE, is wrong. I think the Sea People phenomenon was a very long process that started with various groups at the late 15th century BCE and went all the way through to the 11th century BCE,”

Once again we have someone using circular logic. Carbon dating is useless unless it is calibrated using something that is solidly dated. We have nothing from that time period that is of a known date because of the disputed chronology. The result is that they are using the flawed chronology to confirm the flawed chronology.

So, if we want to toss the Carbon dating altogether, we could certainly do that. But then we have the end of the palace system, and destruction of cities, etc. Are you suggesting that Proto-Geometric and early Archaic art and wares andstyles were just a natural continuation of late Mycenaean art? And the period before the adoption of the Greek alphabet?
What if no "Dark Age" just a period of destruction and change after the end of the palace system?

The Phillistines were foreigners. So what? The evidence suggests that there was a long standing cultural exchange between the Aegean and the Levant lasting centuries. It makes sense that some Aegeans would have chosen to permanently settle in the region.

So, if we want to toss the Carbon dating altogether, we could certainly do that. But then we have the end of the palace system, and destruction of cities, etc. Are you suggesting that Proto-Geometric and early Archaic art and wares andstyles were just a natural continuation of late Mycenaean art? And the period before the adoption of the Greek alphabet?
What if no "Dark Age" just a period of destruction and change after the end of the palace system?

The end of the Palace system only occurred in the Aegean and it is more likely a result of internal strife rather than outside invasion. The so-called era of city destruction occurred over a period of two centuries; it didn't all happen at once; and there were far fewer cities destroyed than has been claimed.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.